Tragically, 9,300 men in South Korea are infected with the HIV/AIDS virus [1] and there is a very real danger that they will spread this incurable disease further unless they are isolated from the rest of the population without delay.

The question is, of course, where? After extensive research, I believe I have identified the ideal location: the island of Yeonpyeong.

This island has a civilian population of just 1,600 that could easily be relocated to the South Korean mainland and the existing town could easily be expanded to accommodate the new arrivals.

In addition, there is already a military presence on the island that can be called upon to maintain law and order among the inmates and, because the nearest mainland is 12km across the Yellow Sea in North Korea, escape would be undesirable even if it were possible.

Therefore, I duly affirm that, in order to save innocent lives by inhibiting the spread of AIDS, the South Korean government should establish an AIDS colony on the island of Yeonpyeong as soon as possible.

My opponent offers a plan: that the South Korean government should move the 9,300 South Korean men who are infected with HIV to a prison camp on the island of Yeonpyeong.

==Burden of proof==

My opponent, as the instigator, has the burden of proving that this plan is a good idea.

==My case==

I evaluate my opponent's proposal from two main perspectives:

1. The subjective viewpoint of the South Koreans
2. From the viewpoint of objective morality

---The viewpoint of the South Koreans---

To evaluate what is best from the South Korean perspective, we should evaluate what policy would achieve the greatest good for the greatest number (of South Koreans), adopting a utilitarian weighing mechanism.

C1) South Korea has more important things to worry about

According to CNN, early this morning, the island of Yeonpyeong was attacked by North Korea. [1] South Korea needs to focus on defending this island from North Korean artillery rather than worrying about building an HIV prison camp, forcibly removing the local inhabitants, and capturing and imprisoning 9,300 HIV positive men on the island. The police action that would be required to round up all 9,300 HIV positive men would significantly erode South Korea's military readiness. Most of the 9,300 HIV positive men would either hide or attempt to flee the country.

C2) Human Rights Abuses

Forcible imprisonment of HIV positive men violates their right to life and violates theories of criminal punishment that require that someone actually commit a crime before being imprisoned. We can't preemptively arrest people. In addition, brian's policy unfairly targets only HIV positive men. As his own source points out, there are 3,600 HIV positive women in South Korea. Targeting only men is discriminatory.

The rest of the world would rightly view this HIV prison camp as an abuse of human rights. The U.S. would be forced to sanction South Korea and pull our support from the country, at the worst possible time for the South Korean people. Tensions with North Korea, over the Cheonan warship sinking and now the Yeonpyeong shelling incident, are at an all time high, and the Korean peninsula is on the verge of war. Now is not the time to lose U.S. support.

C3) Unnecessary

People can prevent the spread of HIV using condoms. Education campaigns about the need for safe sex have drastically reduced STD transmission rates. [2] In addition, HIV is no longer the death sentence it used to be. The Examiner, in an article entitled "HIV/AIDS diagnosis no longer a death sentence," explains that new, cheap antiretroviral treatments have made the disease entirely manageable. [3] My opponent has no valid reason for punishing people who have HIV with a mandatory sentence of "life in prison," but not punishing people with Chlamydia, gonorrhea, or herpes.

C4) Better methods of enforcement

Many countries have made it a criminal offense to knowingly transmit HIV to a partner through unprotected sex. [4] The willful transmission of HIV should be illegal; it should not be illegal to have the disease, period.

C5) Turn – fewer people will get tested

The Examiner article talks about how one of the great advances in preventing the spread of HIV has been the proliferation of HIV testing and "get tested" educational campaigns. If people don't know they are infected, they are more likely to unknowingly transmit the disease to a partner. If having HIV is a crime, punishable by life in prison, people will be too afraid to get tested; they will fear that the doctors will report them to the police, if they test positive. My opponent's policy will have the unintended consequence of increasing HIV transmission in South Korea.

---Objective morality---

According to the Kantian Categorical Imperative, we cannot treat people as a means to an end, but only as ends in themselves. The Kantian system of ethics does not allow us to sacrifice 9,300 people for the greater good. Each person has an intrinsic right to life and liberty that cannot be unjustly violated.

John Locke stated that people have a right to life, liberty, and property. The South Korean government has no right to unjustly appropriate the land of the 1,600 current residents of Yeonnpyeong. We cannot treat these people as a means to an end either.

==Rebuttal==

o AIDS is not a virus

o How much would all this cost? (the forced relocation of the local inhabitants, building a prison on the island, rounding up all the HIV positive men)

My opponent must prove that the benefits to South Korea outweigh the costs of implementing this policy.

I would like to thank bluesteel for accepting this challenge and for posting such an eloquent and comprehensive rebuttal.

First of all I should like to state that I am indebted to my opponent for advising me that the island I had chosen for the South Korean AIDS colony had, by coincidence, come under heavy bombardment from the North Korean military a few hours before I posted this debate.

What a coincidence! Never mind though, it negates the need to offer compensation and alternative housing for the civilians on the island, as they will now be fleeing for their lives leaving the smouldering ruins of their houses behind them.

First I will address the subjective morality of the South Koreans and the wider implications of the proposal.

The primary responsibility of the South Korean government – indeed any responsible government – is to protect its citizens, even though that may mean sacrifices in circumstances such as wars, famines and the occasion of lethal epidemics such as the spread of the AIDS virus represents.

Desperate times call for desperate measures and just as South Korea didn't protest at the alleged American human rights abuses that took place in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay because they respected the right of the USFG to combat terrorist threats to American citizens, I would expect the United States to reciprocate by allowing the South Koreans to deal with their AIDS problem in the way they see fit.

Furthermore, North Korea represents a potential threat to American commercial and military interests in the Pacific region, and with further development of their nuclear programme, the North Koreans could soon be capable of targeting long-range nuclear missiles on mainland United States – I very much doubt that the US would let her concerns about the civil liberties of a handful of HIV-positive men (who are, let's be honest, dying anyway) interfere with the American economy or national security.

In any case, the South Koreans would not refer to the policy as "imprisonment in an AIDS penal colony" but rather something like "quarantined in an AIDS treatment facility" and will point to past occasions when they have quarantined some of their citizens for the greater public good, for example, during the recent outbreak of Avian Flu there. [1]

With regard to treatment, it is true that certain drugs can mitigate the effects of AIDS and prolong life, but there is, as yet no cure.

With regard to enforcement, it may well be the case that deliberately infecting somebody with HIV is, or should be, illegal but prevention is always better than cure and it would make sense to separate high risk individuals from society before they have a chance to commit that crime – rather like removing a firearm from a mentally-deranged psychopath before he had the chance to fire it.

In addition, many transmissions take place by men who have unprotected sex with other men knowing the risks, or through the use of shared needles to inject illegal drugs. In these cases, the sufferers must accept a degree of culpability for their condition.

With regard to testing, it is normal for people to have a comprehensive medical including blood tests at least once a year and this will include routine screening for AIDS. It is unlikely that somebody would jeopardise their health by foregoing their medical just on the off-chance that they may have contracted AIDS – unless, of course, they knew that they had deliberately put themselves at risk by having unprotected gay sex or by sharing heroin needles, in which case, as I said, they must be prepared to accept the consequences of their irresponsible actions – whatever they may be.

Finally, my opponent observed that I made a distinction between male sufferers on one hand, and female and children victims on the other hand, and I did so deliberately for a very good reason - HIV is most commonly spread by adult males through unprotected penetrative sex [2] - females and pre-pubescent males cannot pass on AIDS in this way and are, therefore, low risk.

Moving on to objective morality, it is absolutely the case that a minority of members of society pose a risk to the majority then that risk should be mitigated. That's why we incarcerate criminals, place people with profound mental health problems in secure psychiatric facilities and quarantine people who have contracted contagious and deadly diseases such as Avian Flu and other incurable infections.

With specific regard to the inhabitants of Yeonpyeong Island, many have fled as I have said and few will relish living with the threat of future North Korean bombardments or even invasion and they will probably consider themselves be better off on the mainland. However, if some do want to take their chances with the shells, missiles and AIDS sufferers, I suppose they should be allowed to do so.

In conclusion, the benefit to the South Korean population as a whole of ridding themselves, perhaps within a generation, of the deadly spectre of HIV/AIDS far outweighs any minor and short-term inconveniences a small number of terminally-ill AIDS sufferers will have to endure.

This goes un-refuted. On the verge of war with North Korea, South Korea does not have the resources right now to forcibly remove all the residents of Yeonpyeong, build a prison camp, and then capture 9,300 HIV positive men who will not want to be found. South Korea needs to focus all of its attention on its military readiness. The police action to capture 9,300 citizens would be an incredible distraction at the worst possible time. And there's no possible way it would be 100% successful. South Korea should focus its entire military, police, and political attention on the military threat from North Korea.

C2) Human Rights Abuses

*My opponent argues that South Korea did not protest American rights abuses in Iraq/Guantanamo*

There was actually a massive protest of the Iraq War in South Korea. [1] There were a number of attacks on U.S. troops in South Korea during this time period because of anti-American sentiment.

The U.S. has threatened sanctions against China many times in the recent past to combat human rights abuses. [2] The international community would force the U.S. to decrease engagement in South Korea if South Korea abused human rights. This would hurt South Korea's war-fighting ability and strained relations with the U.S. would decrease deterrence against a North Korean invasion.

*My opponent argues that North Korea is a threat and the U.S. would not let human rights abuses threaten our national security*

South Korea is not vital to U.S. national security. We are defended against North Korean nuclear weapons because 1) North Korea has yet to build a missile that can make it past Japan in test flights and 2) we have our own nuclear deterrent; a North Korean nuclear attack on U.S. soil would result in massive retaliation. Lastly, we could remove troops from South Korea and still defend our interests in the region using our troops in Japan. South Korea needs us far more than we need them.

*My opponent argues that South Korea will spin the imprisonment as "quarantined in a treatment facility"*

People aren't stupid and can see through this farce. When you imprison an HIV positive person for life, that isn't treatment and it's not quarantine. Quarantines are temporary. With Avian Flu, you confine and treat people with the disease until the epidemic passes. My opponent is proposing life imprisonment of HIV positive men, in the absence of an epidemic. HIV in South Korea hardly reaches epidemic proportion – according to my opponent's original source, less than 0.1% of South Korea's population has HIV.

*My opponent argues that it's fair to only lock up men because only men transmit the disease*

My opponent's own Center for Disease Control evidence (that he cites for this point) disproves this: "Yes, it is possible for either partner to become infected with HIV through vaginal sex. In fact, it is the most common way the virus is transmitted in much of the world. HIV can be found in the blood, semen (cum), pre-seminal fluid (pre-cum) or vaginal fluid of a person infected with the virus."

My opponent completely unfairly discriminates against men.

C3) Unnecessary

*My opponent says there is no cure*

Experts at the University of Southern California have developed a cure for HIV using genes from mice that are immune to the disease. [3] Science Daily describes another cure that works by killing all host cells infected with the disease. [4] According to a study published on November 23 in the New England Journal of Medicine, a new drug is available that prevents a person from contracting HIV with 90% effectiveness. [5]

My opponent never answers my analysis that because of anti-retroviral drugs, HIV is no longer a death sentence. In addition, condoms can prevent transmission. There's no logical reason why HIV should be treated so drastically differently from other STDs, like Chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, and herpes.

C4) Better enforcement

*My opponent says we should remove people with HIV much as we'd remove a gun from a mentally deranged psychopath*

In the U.S., the mentally ill cannot buy firearms because they do not have the mental capacity to deal with such a deadly weapon. HIV positive people, in contrast, do have the mental capacity to prevent transmission to their sexual partners. The following would solve most of the problem: make knowing transmission of HIV a crime tantamount to murder and knowing unprotected sex while having HIV (if transmission luckily fails) would be tantamount to attempted murder.

*My opponent says the sufferer was "asking for it" if having unprotected sex*

This sounds similar to Bill O'Reilly's claim that women who are out at night, drunk, and dressed provocatively are "asking for" rape. If the perpetrator knowingly transmits HIV, the perpetrator of the crime is the one who is guilty.

C5) Turn – fewer people will get tested

*My opponent argues people would not forgo physicals*

Physicals do not involve an STD test. If the State mandated that each physical include an STD test, people would wise up and refuse to get physicals as well. People would be willing to risk their health if it meant avoiding a life sentence in prison.

Extend my argument that out of fear of arrest, fewer people would get tested for HIV. Less HIV testing would result in fewer people who know they're infected, and thus, HIV will be spread more easily throughout South Korean society. "Get tested" campaigns have been credited with decreased transmission rates. This turns my opponent's entire case. If his policy increases HIV transmission rates, it is entirely counter-productive to its stated mission. This is a reason alone to vote Con.

===
For all the above reasons, South Korea would be worse off if it implemented my opponent's plan, hurting the war effort and increasing HIV transmission.
===

---Objective morality---

*My opponent says a minority may be sacrificed for the good of a majority*

This logic justifies the Holocaust. Anything that says the Holocaust is okay cannot be a good moral system.

*My opponent says that's why we incarcerate criminals*

Criminals are incarcerated for violating someone else's right to life, liberty, or property. They are imprisoned for breaking the Kantian Categorical Imperative. The HIV positive have not violated anyone else's rights, unless they knowingly and purposely transmit the disease to someone.

*Mentally ill*

We don't forcibly imprison the mentally ill anymore in the U.S. since "One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest" publicized the atrocities of forced institutionalization.

*Quarantine*

Quarantines are temporary, so they don't violate the right to life or liberty. My opponent proposes life imprisonment for those with HIV. His policy is morally equivalent to proposing that during an epidemic, any infected people should be shot on sight.

Extend my argument that the HIV positive still have a right to life and liberty and may not be used as a means to an end. My opponent does not challenge Kantian morality directly, so he does not contest the fact that people cannot be used as a means to an end.

*My opponent says local inhabitants can stay*

Yeonpyeong is a small island with 1600 local inhabitants. He cites no evidence that it could accommodate 9300 more, and it is extremely doubtful that it could accommodate all the local residents in addition to 9300 HIV positive men, should all the inhabitants decide to stay.

My opponent is also changing his original advocacy, which is unsportsmanlike. I believe his policy still violates the locals' right to property (according to Locke).

HIV is the least of South Korea's worries right now..
Brian_eggleston knew about North Korea's attack on Yeonpyeong, although he states that he had not, because he had posted a debate forum about it BEFORE starting this debate.http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...

VERY interesting topic you have here. I think you both had an excellent debate, and it will be tough voting for you guys. I agree with Brian on how it would be great to have an isolated island to try to stop the disease, but if a typical island of about 2,000 people adds another 7,000 people to it's population, than I think that would throw off the way of life on the island, due to the fact that they would need to have tons of more resources delivered to them daily. Way more than they needed when there was only 2,000 people. Plus, bluesteel is right when saying South Korea has bigger problems. Overall, great debate on both sides.